OUR VIEW: Right-to-work amendment not needed

Published: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.

Little by little, Alabama lawmakers are working to streamline Alabama’s 1901 Constitution, widely regarded as one of the longest and most cumbersome governing documents in the United States, if not the world.

Constitutions should be living documents, adaptable when necessary, but they shouldn’t be receptacles for political posturing. That’s how state Sen. Gerald Dial’s proposal to include a “right-to-work” provision in the Constitution strikes us — nothing more than political red meat for the wolves.

Alabama is a right to work state. It has laws on the books to that effect, but Dial says that’s not enough. He wants constitutional protection of that status.

We’ll bypass the rhetoric about whether Dial should be working to improve the collective lot of residents in his district and the role that unions might have in that. Our beef with his latest proposal is that it simply isn’t necessary.

Dial says there is no guarantee that when the pendulum swings back to the left, as it almost assuredly will some day, that laws now on the books could be repealed. Alabama has been a right-to-work state since 1953. Those laws were put in place by Democrats, and remained in place for close to 60 more years of Democratic control in the State House.

Acknowledging that the two main parties are more polarized than ever before on many issues, we don’t believe there would be a reversal even if the balance of power shifted in Montgomery.

It may be more difficult to change a constitutional amendment than a basic law, but those can be repealed as well. Including a “right-to-work” provision in the constitution doesn’t guarantee that it will last forever. Dial says a constitutional amendment would show business that Alabama is serious about jobs. We believe that can be done without adding additional clutter to the constitution. If the state wants to show its serious about jobs, then it should ramp up it’s constitutional reform efforts and make it easier to do business here.

Alabama needs less in its constitution, not more. Dial is off base with this latest proposal. It’s political pandering at its worst.

<p>Little by little, Alabama lawmakers are working to streamline Alabama's 1901 Constitution, widely regarded as one of the longest and most cumbersome governing documents in the United States, if not the world. </p><p>Constitutions should be living documents, adaptable when necessary, but they shouldn't be receptacles for political posturing. That's how state Sen. Gerald Dial's proposal to include a “right-to-work” provision in the Constitution strikes us — nothing more than political red meat for the wolves. </p><p>Alabama is a right to work state. It has laws on the books to that effect, but Dial says that's not enough. He wants constitutional protection of that status.</p><p>We'll bypass the rhetoric about whether Dial should be working to improve the collective lot of residents in his district and the role that unions might have in that. Our beef with his latest proposal is that it simply isn't necessary.</p><p>Dial says there is no guarantee that when the pendulum swings back to the left, as it almost assuredly will some day, that laws now on the books could be repealed. Alabama has been a right-to-work state since 1953. Those laws were put in place by Democrats, and remained in place for close to 60 more years of Democratic control in the State House.</p><p>Acknowledging that the two main parties are more polarized than ever before on many issues, we don't believe there would be a reversal even if the balance of power shifted in Montgomery.</p><p>It may be more difficult to change a constitutional amendment than a basic law, but those can be repealed as well. Including a “right-to-work” provision in the constitution doesn't guarantee that it will last forever. Dial says a constitutional amendment would show business that Alabama is serious about jobs. We believe that can be done without adding additional clutter to the constitution. If the state wants to show its serious about jobs, then it should ramp up it's constitutional reform efforts and make it easier to do business here. </p><p>Alabama needs less in its constitution, not more. Dial is off base with this latest proposal. It's political pandering at its worst.</p>